What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The TV rights thread

Who would you like to see get the rights providing the price is right?

  • Seven

    Votes: 57 20.5%
  • Nine

    Votes: 49 17.6%
  • Ten

    Votes: 110 39.6%
  • Rights split between FTA channels

    Votes: 147 52.9%

  • Total voters
    278
Status
Not open for further replies.

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
Guys, most of this article is reproduced from old articles up to 6 months old... the only parts of it that I hadn't heard before were these bits

Meanwhile, it is believed Gyngell has been quietly making the case that Nine is well placed to help the AFL with its plans to add teams in western Sydney and the Gold Coast. Not that anyone will talk specifics.
and
"We are in constant dialogue with the free-to-air networks, with the pay-TV networks and with the sporting associations, and we are making progress, but we are not near completion yet," Conroy said yesterday.

Apart from that, there is nothing new in there. Those quotes by Gallop talking rugby league down piss me off too, but they are really old. It's not like he said it yesterday.

This article is more a summary of whats been going on over the last few months regarding rights, and says the competition is heating up.
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
going for longer isn't necessarily a good thing

Swans and Lions games rate terribly and Ten would be happy if they went for 1 hour, not 3

then they could put on some old movie that gets double the ratings
True, it's horrible TV viewing and I don't know how anyone lasts the distance...

Maybe AFL can introduce their own version of crowd-pleasing 20-20 in the future? I think it's the way forward...

Maybe they can cut their game down to a standard footy field size, reduce the players to 10 a side, and then play it at half-time in the league or soccer? :lol:
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Thats what I thought , that RL ratings were superior.
We have the best product which is in greater demand to be watched on TV.
And there is SOO which smashes everything on TV.

Start talking it up David
Ratings are superior - when you take in regional areas and we pick up our loyal following in country NSW and Qld.

But we don't have the five capital city average over AFL, and Gallop knows this is what is valued more in deals talks with broadcasters and sponsors.

Because of the Super League war, we haven't had really had the money to expand (back) to five capital cities, since the ARL did it in 1995. Fifteen years later and make no mistake, we're still paying for Super League greed and News Ltd conflict of interests...

Gallop is doing the best job he can under the circumstances he is operating within. You can't talk up something in those terms that frankly (and unfortunately) isn't yet ready to talk up or compete.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Ratings are superior - when you take in regional areas and we pick up our loyal following in country NSW and Qld.

But we don't have the five capital city average over AFL, and Gallop knows this is what is valued more in deals talks with broadcasters and sponsors.

Because of the Super League war, we haven't had really had the money to expand (back) to five capital cities, since the ARL did it in 1995. Fifteen years later and make no mistake, we're still paying for Super League greed and News Ltd conflict of interests...

Gallop is doing the best job he can under the circumstances he is operating within. You can't talk up something in those terms that frankly (and unfortunately) isn't yet ready to talk up or compete.

what a load of sh*t

look at the advertising revenue in regional areas compared to small cities

nvv23n.jpg
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
What I can't understand is that Gallop always brings out the the fact that AFL is "truly national" with a higher five capital cities rating as the reason why rules has a better TV rights contract. Yet he continually puts down the prospect of expansion to other states such as WA as "not necessairly" helping us gain better TV contracts?

He can't have it both ways.
Basic point is that we don't have the money in the game to expand. The coffers were cleaned out because of the Super League war, and whenever more money comes into the game, existing clubs and players (and many media and fans) foolishly demand that it be eaten up straight away in increases to the salary cap!

We can't have it both ways - either we prioritise expansion, or we are happy paying more and more for the same old thing we have now?

He's talking down the FTA aspect while ignoring the fact that Fox pays more for AFL, where the arguement about five capitals and going for longer is irrelevent. Fox works on a subscription model and gets far more subscribers from RL than AFL yet pays more for AFL, Gallop doesn't mention that. Go figure.
Fox used rugby league to establish their payTV foothold in Australia, that's what the Super League war was about, and the game, the players, the clubs, and the fans were just pawns in that.

They used us to build their foundation, and have no real need to prioritise us now. That also goes toward why rights for other sports whose fan bases have yet to be effectively milked for payTV will be higher/overvalued while league will be undervalued (in comparison).

If we call for the top guys head every time another sport gets a better deal than us, then there'll be a lot of heads lying around and no-one wanting the job! Like Gallop, the game can only do the best it can within the limitations placed on it - if anyone is to blame for this current situation, it's still Super League and the people who supported it.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
Its a simple formula isn't it?

TV ratings + region or city advertising revenue = value of game.

But

NRL has great and AFL has piss weak ratings in NSW + NSW worth lots of advertising money = NRL gets less than AFL...

Should be fairly simple who gets the money...

To Bartmans last comment, I agree about expansion. Simply having 2 more sides provides a boost to the employment oportunities at clubs. Yes, the cap should probably be higher. But with more teams there are better oportunities for good players to get a better deal
 
Last edited:

Cletus

First Grade
Messages
7,171
The fact they have teams in 5 capital cities might have something to do with it?


Why, because 7 and 10 can broadcast live in Brisbane and Sydney and come last in their timeslot? It adds to their overall numbers but it isn't good for them at all in NSW and Queensland and they should be getting a discount for live braodcasts. And why is Gallop saying that when he has to negotiate with them? It's just mind boggling.

And you'll never hear Gallop talk up the Foxtel viewing figures. I'm sure he'll give us the Fox line about driving subscribers in the southern states, even though they've lost a fortune doing that with little to show for it.

KIM WILLIAMS: Foxtel has expended over $300 million on AFL over the past five years. Unfortunately we have not recovered all that money and our losses are greater than half that money. We have no viable operational basis, regrettably, to continue with a 24 hour a day AFL football channel.

NORMAN HERMANT: Some media analysts say this isn't all bad news for Foxtel. It's invested heavily in the AFL as a way to draw customers to its pay television service. It's a model that worked successfully in other countries, notably the UK, where the English Premier League provided a huge boost for pay TV.

But Peter Cox, of Cox Media says Foxtel didn't have the same success here.

PETER COX: For Foxtel the Football channel was an experiment they started out when they got those last five-year contract. It's a very expensive channel for them to produce and the reason why they wanted it was to drive subscription in the southern states. It other words, the level of penetration of Foxtel in New South Wales and in Sydney, is far higher than what it is in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

And that was the objective and it has not been particularly successful in that regard.

Thursday, 24 August , 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1723416.htm
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
what a load of sh*t

look at the advertising revenue in regional areas compared to small cities
Link/source? And if capital city advertising was unimportant, why does that page end with comparison for teh networks on just a capital city average?

The game has already delivered regional NSW and Qld audience to payTV. Free to air networks would already include their regional affiliates in their rights bid value calculations.

What AFL offers that gives it higher value is a market that is believed to be untapped. I don't necessarily believe that people around the country (capital and regional) will be easily converted to watching that game on TV, but that's what people in broadcast land and their supporting media arms seem to believe, and want us all to do/believe.

Unfortunately this is a fact of life our game and us as fans have to acknowledge. Replacing Gallop or complaining about him won't change it one bit. Getting rid of News Ltd - while not capitulating to their preferred format of electing the IC without input from game administration, which could stall the game even more - will change a lot, and get us back on track to where we were headng in 1995.
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Its a simple formula isn't it?

TV ratings + region or city advertising revenue = value of game.

But

NRL has great and AFL has piss weak ratings in NSW + NSW worth lots of advertising money = NRL gets less than AFL...

Should be fairly simple who gets the money...
I would say the formula is more complex, and what might drive the bids offered by the rights purchasers includes the following factor:

perception of the ability to grow the product into wider audience shares

For some reason they think AFL is yet to hit its peak of popularity. I disagree, and think the western sydney team will tank. But the ones with the money looking to buy rights will be looking at getting what they perceive to be good value on something that's going to increase their growth.

To Bartmans last comment, I agree about expansion. Simply having 2 more sides provides a boost to the employment oportunities at clubs. Yes, the cap should probably be higher. But with more teams there are better oportunities for good players to get a better deal
If we want to be in a better position with the buyers, then yes the game needs to prioritise expansion rather than salary cap increases.

News Ltd's preferred format for forming the IC will lead to exactly the opposite - reps accountable to 16 clubs will not imo be clamouring to carve up the share of increased money 18 ways to help expansion, when clubs, players and their slimy managers are all crying out for more of the moolah.... only the ARL will do that, as they did in 1982, 1988 and 1995 before Super League set us back and got us in this mess.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Link/source?

source to what :?

Masters wrote what should happen last year and this is the kind of thing Gallop ashould be saying instead of talking down their value http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...rights-are-worth-1-billion-20091123-iv26.html

Double or nothing: Why the NRL TV rights are worth $1 billion
ROY MASTERS
May 16, 2009

NRL club bosses will press chief executive David Gallop to demand $1 billion in TV rights fees in the next broadcasting contract following the release of a confidential report showing rugby league has closed the viewership gap on the AFL over the past three years, with both codes having a cumulative audience of 120 million last year.

Rugby league has also continued its popularity on pay-TV, seizing 15 of the top 20 most popular programs last year, while the AFL's most watched game came in 26th, despite an improved programming deal in the existing broadcasting contract.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou said recently he would expect an increase of $200m on the AFL's five-year deal of $780m, prompting one NRL club chief to say: "If they can get a billion dollars for the same audience we get, we should get a billion."

The NRL's six-year deal (2007-12) with Channel Nine-Fox Sports is valued at $500m, well below the AFL's contract, despite both codes staging the same number of games each week.

While the revelations on an ABC Four Corners program concerning the group sex incident involving Matthew Johns is expected to hurt the NRL in the corporate marketplace with sponsorships, TV ratings have surged since the launch of the season, when the code was forced to cancel an advertising campaign that had focused on Brett Stewart, after he was charged with the sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl.

This year, Channel Nine's NRL coverage of rounds one to five attracted an average capital city audience of 761,000 per match, up 9 per cent on last season's average, based on OzTAM figures. Nine's second match on Friday night, up 42 per cent in Sydney and Brisbane on last year's average, is driving most of this increase.

By comparison, the AFL's free-to-air audiences this year after three rounds (Seven's Friday night game 717,000; Ten's Saturday game 536,000 and evening game 774,000 and Seven's Sunday game 529,000) are down across all matches on the previous year, and well below 2007 figures. "Our NRL ratings are only in two capital cities [Sydney and Brisbane]," said Nine sports director Steve Crawley, drawing a difference with AFL figures which embrace five capitals.

Regional ratings - the NRL has strong followings in rural NSW and Queensland - are not included in this year's figures.

The free-to-air components of the TV rights deals of both codes show the AFL receives almost twice as much per game, despite the NRL rising in popularity.

The AFL receives $465m for five years for four games a week, or $23m for the right to telecast one game each week for a year, while the NRL gets $250m over six years for three games a week, or $14m for a game a week each year.

Pay TV figures also reflect the popularity of rugby league, with NRL matches on Fox Sport last year making up two-thirds of the top 100. The AFL had only 10 top 100 programs, and its most popular game - Fremantle versus Essendon - came 26th.

Foxtel paid Seven and Ten $315.5m over five years to cover four live matches a week, equal to $15.8m for the right to televise one game a week for the season.

Fox Sports pay the NRL $42m a year for five games, or $8.4m or the right to televise one game a week for the season.

Insofar as News Ltd owns both half the NRL and half Fox Sports, the pay TV rights' underpayment reflects badly on this continuing conflict of interest.

This year, Fox Sports' live viewing for the first five NRL rounds (Saturday evening average viewing per match 279,000; Sunday 210,000; Monday evening 268,000) is well ahead of the AFL's 182,000 average for the first three rounds.

NRL viewing is up 3 per cent on last season's average and the same rounds last year, while AFL is up 8 per cent on last year's average and 9 per cent on the same rounds last year.

Foxtel penetration is highest in Sydney, with a report commissioned by the NRL quoting a Foxtel executive in March this year saying, "Rugby league is a key driver for our Sydney penetration. It is rare to get a single decision-making purchase, but NRL is an important tentpole factor."

Of pay TV's 100 most popular programs last year, a rugby union Test came in first; two football World Cup qualifier matches occupied the next two positions, then came the NRL's top game, Cowboys versus Storm.

Overall, NRL occupied 66 spots; Test cricket 12; AFL 10; union Tests 4; America's Next Top Model 4; World Cup football qualifiers 3; Super 14 rugby 1.

However, free-to-air coverage has been largely responsible for NRL closing the gap on overall TV figures with the AFL, which has lost one free-to-air game to pay.

Since 2005, Channel Nine's NRL audience has increased 7 per cent a year, driven predominantly by viewership in an additional Friday night game introduced in 2007.

The introduction of the Titans and the double-header format has increased Queensland audiences by 25 per cent, with limited effect on NSW viewership until this year when the combination of games which are close and free at a time of global recession has boosted the second Friday night match by 42 per cent.

The AFL's expectation of a $1b TV contract beginning in 2012 is based on an additional game each week, as a result of a western Sydney team starting that year and a Gold Coast team entering the competition in 2011.

To win the extra revenue, the AFL might be willing to abandon its set fixture schedule to allow broadcasters flexibility to maximise ratings, with double-headers, such as Collingwood matches in Melbourne and West Coast-Fremantle matches in Perth on Friday nights.

Channel Nine televises higher- ranked, closer-positioned NRL teams on Friday night in prime time, again indicating how the NRL is underpaid by the broadcasters.

and here's a more recent Advertising Revenue pdf

http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/2010-0002_MED_PR13_Revenue_figures_-_Jul_-_Dec_09.pdf

4fwj0j.jpg
 
Last edited:

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
source to what :?

Masters wrote what should happen last year and this is the kind of thing Gallop ashould be saying instead of talking down their value http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...rights-are-worth-1-billion-20091123-iv26.html
Source to your image of advertising revenues you posted. * Ah, you've done that now *

I like Roy's articles and take on these issues, much better than a self-interested muppet like Gould's. There's no argument we were underpaid on the last round of TV deals.

But fact is until News Ltd is out of the game, we all know Gallop's hands are tied. We've been complaining about it for years, and anyone else in Gallop's role would not (or could not) be doing anything different.

We all want the IC to hasten News' exit from our game. But News have been very clever, in setting in motion (through their papers, the greed for power among the clubs, and strangely through Gus Gould...) a push and urgency based around a structure that will not effectively set up the game to expand and compete. Many have said it is not in News/Fox's interests for league to expand and compete now, and their parting gift is pushing a structure on the game that in the absence of equal contribution from the RLs will ensure any new money is eaten by greedy clubs, players and managers in raising the salary cap rather used to set up new teams and grow the comp - and the future rights deal.
 
Last edited:

Lockyer4President!

First Grade
Messages
7,975
Gallop is the worst possible sports administrator in Australia.

"We get less because we're not national" (ignoring that we get more viewers and have the largest markets sown up)
and then:
"We aren't going to expand to Perth and Adelaide because it won't necessarily improve the tv deal"

Make up your mind you spineless wanker.
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
So, off that 2010 Advert revenue sheet, these are the most valuable market areas, in order...

Sydney (League & AFL)
Melbourne (AFL & League)
Brisbane (League & AFL)
Regional NSW (League...)
Perth (AFL...)
Adelaide (AFL...)
Regional QLD (League...)
Regional Victoria (AFL...)
and the rest.

Two things:
a) AFL has as much if not more (territorially speaking) than league does
b) broadcasters can also see an option/poetntial for AFL to grow up into two higher market areas (regional NSW and QLD, if more teams are set up in... say GWS and GC to start with)

League was cleaned out of money by these guys (the media rights holders) during their super league war, so they know we don't have the money to grow teams in Perth and Adelaide yet, so the potential for growth in legaue during the next rights period isn't there. Therefore based on those figures and their knowledge of the state of the game (by serving/sharing power on the NRL board) they'll pay higher for AFL than for league.

Step 1: News Ltd out of the game, though not on their new preference of terms
Step 2: Clubs, players, fans to not push for increased salary cap from an increased broadcast rights deal we get this time
Step 3: League can be in a financial position to announce plans for expansion/growth during the rights period after that (2015 on?), which will drive up the bids to where they should be, and finally the game will have recovered from Super League, and be moving forward like it was twenty years earlier...
Step 4: complaining about Gallop during all of this time, because it somehow makes us feel good - or is easier than laying the blame for these rights deals where it should go, ie Super League, News Ltd, and people who supported it all.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
66,115
Thing is we have a team in Melbourne and no FTA TV (to speak of) going into that city. We could be showing NRL in Perth and Adelaide and whilst the viewing figures would be no where near as strong as if we had teams in those cities we would at least be showing the game there. Looking at those advertising figures it is yet another reason Perth has to be developed and be the next team in.

Also I hope he doesn't give away the internet rights like he did last time. That alone has cost us $60million compared to what Telstra are paying AFL. That would be enough to fund two expansion teams on its own.
 

Cletus

First Grade
Messages
7,171
Could anyone imagine Demetriou saying "We don't expect as much as NRL because we're ratings poison in Sydney and Brisbane"? It's just unbelievable Gallop would say something so stupid before negotiations.

If we had a decent CEO we could use our so called disadvantage (being seen as mature sport) to our advantage, Foxtel would haemorrhage money without the NRL.
 
Last edited:

LeagueXIII

First Grade
Messages
5,966
What I can't understand is that Gallop always brings out the the fact that AFL is "truly national" with a higher five capital cities rating as the reason why rules has a better TV rights contract. Yet he continually puts down the prospect of expansion to other states such as WA as "not necessairly" helping us gain better TV contracts?

He can't have it both ways.

Agreed, definately a hidden agenda.

Gallop can not truly believe by forcing TV stations in WA, Vic and SA to show league (as TEN did in the late 80's and early 90's) it would not rate equal to or more than what the AFL rate in Sydney and Brisbane.

He hasn't even got a plan to address this problem if that is what is holding us back.
 

LeagueXIII

First Grade
Messages
5,966
The irony is that while the media crap on about AFL invasions extra creating the perception we are weak and vulnerable, rugby league has already invading the equivilant heartland in AFL ie. Melbourne. The Storm have 4 teams in various grades, are about to move into a new stadium, have a reasonable average attendance and plenty of people who have an interest who would happily watch it on TV if it were on at a reasonable hour.
 

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,694
Well we have 4 capital cities in Aus to their 5, add NZ and it's 5 all, we then have the regionals and with NZ, a whole frigging country :crazy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top